A Case for Bioregionalism in Place-Based Research.

• Date: 01 January 2015
• Author: Moreno, Elise

Early Bioregionalism

As a lead in to a new Tasmanian study exploring the political efficacy of bioregionalism, this article will provide researchers, community members and policy practitioners alike with an overview of the concept. From its humble and idealised origins, through to its current position as a highly theoretical but under-utilised framework in social research, the article presents bioregionalism as a potential community development model characterised by resistance, renewal and resilience. A grassroots approach that, coupled with the recent failure of big government (1) to deliver appropriate policies and reforms across a range of policy areas, could serve as a creative and inclusive alternative.

Emerging in the late 1960s as a product of counter-culture movements, most notably in the Californian region of America, bioregionalism evokes two basic meanings: that of biogeography from the natural sciences, and eco-social movements within that of culture (Berg 1977; Berg & Dasmann 1978; Snyder 1980). Underpinned by a growing interest in biogeography, early representations of bioregionalism focussed on empowering new forms of eco-regionalism. (2) Based on a phenomenology of place and the integration of culture and nature within regional geography, proponents of the land such as artist/activists Peter Berg and Gary Snyder used moral and cultural criticism as a means of expressing the case for a bioregional agenda (Berg 1977; Snyder 1980, 1995). (3) Their aim was to break down a political mindset of boundaries that constituted a purely habituated notion of regional distinction in favour of a sense of region based on its possibilities (Snyder 1980).

Developed in an era of social and political uncertainty and inter-related social change movements that have come to characterise the cultural turbulence of the 1960s, a new awareness of the environment and rural productivity was born. Primarily concerned with 'accelerating rates of resource extraction ... with no discernible improvement in the social or environmental quality of life', this new awareness also acted as a catalyst in 'back to the land' and 'urban pioneer' movements, components of region and community focussed activism in the USA (Aberley 2000:15; Jacob 1997; Johnson, Nucci & Long 2005; Roszak 1969:66). In the UK, this type of activism is strongly associated with that of 'counter-urbanisation' (Halfacree & Boyle 1998; Halfacree 2007), while in Australia, the same concept can be linked to 'reverse migration', a precursor to 'green change' and the phenomenon of 'seachange' (Argent, Smailes & Griffin 2007; Burnley 2005; Burnley & Murphy 2004; Dowling 2004; Gosnell & Abrams 2011; Osbaldiston 2010).

In order to determine what constituted a bioregion, Berg and ecologist Raymond Dasmann (1978: 399) set out initial indicators such as the 'physiography' of the land, 'animal and plant geography', 'natural history' and 'climatology'. However, the pair also suggested that the final boundaries of a bioregion were those best described by the people who lived and continue to live within a region, the 'human recognition of the realities of living-in-place' (Berg & Dasmann 1978). Unlike environmentalism, while still concerned with the environment, particularly the impact of human occupation on the landscape, Berg and Snyder adopted the view of geographer Lewis Mumford (in Lucarelli 1995) and reasoned that humans and their culture were as much a part of nature as the land itself, and therefore the future of both could not be separated. Accordingly, early bioregionalists suggested that a bioregional approach to regional development would need to incorporate what human inhabitants considered the necessities and pleasures of life in their region and actions to ensure long-term occupancy, as opposed to disruptive or unsustainable alternatives linked to short-term or highly exploitive activities that put ecosystems at risk. Inherent in Bergs' (in Glotfelty and Quesnel 2015: 33-40) bioregional vision is therefore the notion of 'reinhabitation'. This notion included restoring and maintaining natural systems by engaging in ecological projects such as replanting clear-cut areas or stabilising stream banks, but also developing a place-located ecological philosophy and movement as a means combating the 'disinhabitory aspects of industrialism' (Glotfelty ad Quesnel 2015: 33-34).

An obvious critique, given bioregionalism's humble and somewhat romanticised roots, was the risk of historical idealisation whereby the occupants of a single region and their culture and traditions could mistakenly be viewed as a 'unified, organic whole attached to a particular place' (Agrawal 2000: 39). Mitchell (1989) also noted that if culture in place was to be a key determinant of bioregional boundaries, 'whose culture took precedence' and, more importantly, 'which aspects of that culture'. (4) According to Mitchell:

Natural resources are defined by human perceptions and attitudes, wants, technological skills, legal, financial and institutional arrangements, as well as by political customs' ... yet what constitutes (sic) '... a natural resource in one culture, may be considered "neutral stuff' in another ... (Mitchell 1989: 2).

From a geographical perspective, Alexander (1996) determined that the issue of culture could be resolved by matching 'geographical terrain' with a 'terrain of consciousness' a heightened awareness of the natural environment and its possibilities, a view first proposed by Berg and Dasmann (1978). Yet even this option would require establishing specific criteria in which to designate a bioregion, specifying at what historical stage the match up occurred, and determining the probability of the stage to return positive and sustainable outcomes for the region and its people (Alexander 1993).

If bioregionalism was given birth in the midst of Californian counter-culture, it was nurtured in the stocks of biogeography emerging as arguably the real 'politics of place' (Michael 1983: 1; Kemmis 1990). For while the concept of a bioregion retains certain characteristics across an array of natural and social science literatures, elucidations of these characteristics are as diverse as the regions they portray. Nevertheless, intrinsic within conceptual understandings of 'bio'regionalism are three common threads: a regard for nature and the natural boundaries of place as opposed to arbitrarily imposed political or administrative borders in which to organise human activity; the call for a practical land ethic, ideally one applied at a local to regional scale; and the need to reestablish or shore up regionally diverse cultures to steward environmental projects, (Alexander 1996; Berg & Dasmann 1978; McGinnis 2000; Sale 1985; Snyder 1995).

Dodge's (1981) bioregional characteristics, for example, refer to natural systems, anarchy and spirituality. The first is in reference to bioregions 'as the source of both physical and spiritual sustenance'; the second, the need to scale down political institutions and intervention to a level of 'face-to-face interactions and self-management'; and the third, 'a belief in the sacredness of life'. Such a vision still resonates with community groups operating in localised sites, particularly the emphasis of practise over philosophy. In his synopsis of bioregionalism, Dodge writes:

... Theories, ideas, notions ... have their generative and reclamative values, and a certain loveliness, but without the palpable intelligence of practice, they remain hovering in the nether regions of nifty entertainment or degrade into flamboyant fads and diversions like literary movements and hula hoops. Practise is what puts the heart to work. If theory establishes the game, practise is the gamble.

Dodge 1981:10.

Dodge's two categories of bioregional practise, that of 'resistance" and 'renewal served to illustrate what he saw as bioregionalisms' defining characteristic, an ideal continuously shaped and extended through experience begetting theory, as opposed to theory mired in intellectual rumination and debate (Dodge 1981: 10-12). Peter Berg, a prolific writer and public speaker spoke out and published extensively on conservation and preservation issues and restoration works undertaken around the world. His last work was a significant project in Ecuador after extreme El Nino storms and an earthquake caused severe damage to the city of Bahia de Cara quez (Berg in Glotfelty & Quesnel 2015:165-170). Yet bioregionalism continues to dwell on the fringe in social research, confused or simply conflated with that of its cousin environmentalism or conservatism, perceived as a utopian as opposed to an actively reformative or committed movement. Shabecoff (2003: 116) for example referred to bioregionalism as 'a minor tributary of the US environmental movement. However, Berg and his fellow bioregionalists were quick to refute this position, not only because the term environmentalism reinforces the false duality of humans and environment, but also because bioregionalism favours pro-activeness over protest (Thayer 2003: 71, Lynch, Glotfelty & Armbruster 2012: 1, Glotfelty & Quesnel 2015: 3).

Bioregionalism Re-visited

Elements embedded within the notion of bioregionalism are still evident in the social sciences, despite a lull on the part of its proponents in recent years. (5) These include support for a spatialised ontology, and a social episteme rooted in the day-to-day realities of living in place (Gieryn 2000: 463, Soya 1989: 129). For amid the pervasive spread of the globalising West, there is a corresponding awareness of the negative cumulative costs associated with scientific and technological development to communities and the environment. In order to resist, let alone go head to head with centralised capitalist powers driving the global political economy, a fundamental shift is required in the way we think and position ecological systems with that of need and...